Skip to content

GHSA-vp55-5c2v-3597

Duplicate Advisory: PraisonAI: Platform members can rewrite shared labels and owner issue labels without owner/admin authorization

Medium Withdrawn Oct 8, 2026 PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
—
No score published
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
None yet
No fixed version published

Description

Duplicate Advisory

This advisory has been withdrawn because it is a duplicate of GHSA-xxgv-vgvj-qvxh. This link is maintained to preserve external references.

Original Description

PraisonAI Platform before 0.1.9 fails to properly authorize label and issue-label mutations, allowing workspace members to rename and recolor shared labels and add or remove labels on owner-created issues. Attackers with workspace member privileges can exploit PATCH and POST/DELETE endpoints to alter shared label taxonomy and manipulate issue-label associations without owner or admin authorization.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
praisonai-platform
<= 0.1.8
No fix yet

How to fix

No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 6.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Withdrawn
  3. Last updated by the source
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-xxgv-vgvj-qvxh
PraisonAI: Platform members can rewrite shared labels and owner issue labels without owner/admin authorization
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-c78w-2q4r-68r7
PraisonAI: Platform member PATCH routes allow owner resource rewrites and project lead reassignment delete bypass
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-mxmx-rh57-jx58
PraisonAI: Platform members can delete owner issue dependencies through member-owned related issues
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-2fjj-qqg8-fg7x
praisonai-platform: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
Medium Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-cwj8-7gp2-ggcw
praisonai-platform: default JWT signing secret 'dev-secret-change-me' enables token forgery
Critical Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-f38v-77qj-h4jq
praisonai-platform 0.1.4 still boots on the hardcoded JWT secret dev-secret-change-me (default-open production guard)
Critical Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-rh39-9c67-59mh
PraisonAI: Missing ownership check on DELETE endpoints allows members to delete others' content in Platform API
High Also affects praisonai-platform
GHSA-7p8g-6c6g-h9w7
praisonai-platform: Agent endpoints accept any agent_id without workspace ownership check, cross-workspace read/update/delete IDOR
High Also affects praisonai-platform
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor